From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Vodka was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Everyday life.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

dubious EB ref[edit]

I removed mentioning of "Sydnayaska Krueger" - absent in the ref cited. Could not confirm from independent sources. - Altenmann >t

Production by country[edit]

The history section concentrates on Poland, Russia and Sweden. It would be good to have some history of vodka production elsewhere, including the Baltics and other ex-Soviet states, and in the U.S. (mainly after WWII). Also suggest a chart of current production by country. Sca (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Malted or Unmalted Grain?[edit]

I have a question about vodka, and I hope this is the right forum in which to submit it: how is fermentable sugar produced from grain to make vodka? In the case of whisky, the grain is malted to produce the fermentable sugars, but I guess this isn't the case with fact I'm kind of assuming that the absence of malting is what distinguishes "grain vodka" from "whisky". I suppose what I'm saying (in a round-about sort of way) is that the "Production" section of this article could probably use this information, if anyone has it. (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There's some malted grain to provide the enzymes for starch-to-sugar conversion, but it's rarely all malted. Malted barely actually supplies such an excess of enzymes that only a small amount of malted grain is needed to completely convert the grain mash before fermentation. Bourbon, rye whiskey, and Irish single pot still whiskey, for example, use mostly unmalted grain in their makeup, with only about 10% malted barley usually for bourbon.
It's not the presence vs absence of malt that separates vodka from whiskey. Whiskey is distilled to lower proof so it retains some flavor a from the grain, and it's aged in wooden barrels, whereas vodka is distilled to almost pure alcohol before being cut to potable levels with additional water, and is not aged. That's the difference, not the use of malt. oknazevad (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Oknazevad - a very interesting and informative answer to my question. The varieties of brewing and distilling never cease to fascinate! (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is the Poland in the first place in this article?[edit]

I don't understand why Poland is the first in the article though recent studies show that vodka was invented in Russia. "According to the Gin and Vodka Association (GVA), the first distillery was documented over three hundred years later at Khlynovsk as reported in the Vyatka Chronicle of 1174." Can you read that? That is a very reliable source and I have not even added it to the article. Jomlini (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jomlini. I see that there are certain Polish guys here pushing their point of view. (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually I'm Russian. And Polish. And unconvinced by any change that rests on a source known to be unreliable. I also do t like it when someone comes in, makes a change, is reverted, and reverts a bunch more times before discussing. That's a sure sign of POV pushing. Especially when it's clear there's nationalistic motives. Frankly, I don't give a fig which comes first, as nationalism is an idiotic motive for anything, but I want reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Jomlini, if you continue to log out to post support for your own rants, you will be blocked from editing. Please consider that Poeticbent talk 18:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, obvious sockpuppetry is another clear sign of a nationalistic POV pushing editor. Don't do that again. oknazevad (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jomlini. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
No offense guys but the fact that two guys from Poland are saying me that I'm a nationalistic pov pusher though you are reverting me because I placed Russia first is just hilarious and extremely ironic. Let's be adults now. Can you two answer my question what you didn't answer for some reason, maybe you two don't even know the answer? I think it is just fair to place Russia first because most of the people in the world think and believe that the vodka was invented in Russia, I think it is a fact too. Also by seeing your edits It seems that you are the natiolistic man here who pretty much edits only articles of Poland and judaism. PS: I'm from Finland and I'm Finnish, how can I be a nationalistic Russian then? Jomlini (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Poeticbent you told me to "take it to talk page" and now I'm asking you. Why should Poland be in the first place? This is just bizarre that you delete my comment though you asked me to ask it. If something is, this is POV pushing. So answer my question. EDIT: It was Oknazevad who told me to take it to the talk page. Jomlini (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Poeticbent and Oknazevad You will have to answer my question so we can together achieve a consensus. Jomlini (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You want factually talk? Ok. First, I'm of Polish decent, but I'm also of Russian descent (I'm an American). So I don't have a particular nationalist POV to push, so drop that nonsense right now. As for the content itself, the changes are based on a story at, the website of the Russian Times, which is known to be an unreliable source that pushes a pro-Russian POV. Not the first time they've tried this; see Talk:Borscht for a similar case from just under a year ago. That's why I reverted in the first place. I don't believe the source is valid. oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok Oknazevad, I totally understand what you are saying. Atleast you can argument without deleting my comments without actually answering, respect for that. But could you answer my original question. Why is Poland placed as "first" in this article though it is widely known that vodka was invented in Russia (by regular people). I understand that you probably think it was invented in Poland and I respect your opinion, but at the moment we don't have enough evidence to say that it is a fact so I think it would be fair to place Russia first. Do you understand me? Jomlini (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Because the sources that are in the article place its invention in Poland (plus the word "vodka" actually entered English from Polish, not Russian). As we don't have a reliable source to counter that, that's what should remain; "widely known" is not enough, as people often make incorrect assumptions. To give another analogy, chili con carne. I've seen many people change the origin in the infobox at that article to "Mexico" because they just know it's from Mexico. But it's actually traced, as best as anyone can tell, to San Antonio, Texas, which is what the sources in the article state. So the article correctly states Texas as its origin. Similarly here, the article lists Poland first because the sources place its origin in Poland. If a reliable source can be found stating Russia, then maybe we change it, but first we need reliable sources. Just because you say everyone thinks it's from Russia (itself not proven) doesn't mean we make the same error. oknazevad (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

And I'm From Finland, why should I have a particular nationalistic POV to push? Jomlini (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

More a case of bad behavior, pushing something and edit warring instead of going to the talk page. And also, the unneeded assumptions about our nationalities. And the total non-sequitur about Judaism, which itself is a bad line to go towards. oknazevad (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Well you said that you are partially polish and Poeticbent is. But let's stop talking about ourselves, let's talk about this article. Can you answer my question? Jomlini (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, folks, you've all thrashed each other quite enough about who is or who isn't a POV pusher or what is or isn't a nationalist source and who comes from which nationality. Boring. Let's get back to the (embarassingly trivial) issue: the name of this drink is evidently pretty much the same in all the countries it's produced in. There's no reason to burden the lead line with translations in all sorts of local languages when they're all trivially similar, and there certainly isn't any reason why the Polish one, of all things, ought to be there, let alone why it needs to be in first position. The only real factor in what we need in the lead line is: which language did English get the word from? – That language is, apparently, Russian [1], and therefore that is the only language that needs to be cited there. Fut.Perf. 16:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly Fut.Perf. That is a fact what no-one can deny. Jomlini (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed text attributed to Gin Vodka Asociation as bullshit. There is no such real Russian town Khlynovsk and there is no 1174 Vyatka Chronicle. The town of Vyatka was established as Khlynov in 1181 as merchant's fort. Vyatka Chronicle is from 18th century. Also GVA does not provide refs to their wisdom. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I found out WTF was going on. Here is an except from the chronicle:
И егда во граде умножишася людие и поселились свободно, и тогда бояшеся нашествия супостатъ поставили острогъ кругомъ всего посаду, наченше съ полуденной стороны отъ глубокова рва где ныне выше винокурни словетъ Епиховъ потокъ и ведоша тотъ острогъ на северъ до глубокова рва, где ныне башня троеворотна
"And when in this town there became many people and they settled freely and then afraid of raids of enemies, they set a fortified fence (острогъ) around the settlement (посад), starting from the southern side from a deep moat where now above the distillery the Epikhov Stream flows and continuing this fence to the north until a deep moat where a three-side tower is now..."
I.e. the distillery mentioned was "now", i.e., in 18th century of the chronicle, not 12th century of Khlynov. Case closed. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. For a long time I've been suspecting the same bullshit about Sandomierz, but so far nobody provided the source of the authentic document to verify, so it is all hearsay of the interested side. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe this will help. Home Production of Vodkas, Infusions & Liqueurs by Stanley Marianski, chapter History, page 107. ISBN 0983697345. The original text of Akta Grodzkie was written in Latin and the town was probably spelled Sandomiria (not Sandomierz, like today). I tried to locate this document online, however, the full genuine archive consists of LXXXIII volumes (I believe, that's 83). I don't know where to look for the relevant documents signed in 1405. Only the volume titles are writen in old Polish, the rest in like Chinese to me. The buck stops here. Poeticbent talk 05:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've seen statements of this kind aplenty. People copy from each other without hesitation. The Russian "Khlynovsk" nonsense is also in several books already. BTW wince the Acta are in Latin, I find it dubious that vodka/wodka would be written anything else but 'aq.vit.'. Also, I noticed Sandomiria often abbr. to 'Sandom.' in these 'Acta'. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I very much agree with the removal of the "Gin and Vodka Association" website as a source. Unfortunately the entire sentence that it was used for is now left unsourced, as the claim "either in Poland in the 8th century, or in the area of today's Russia in the late 9th century" is not covered by the other source that remains. The claim is also extremely dubious, as according to the sources used at distilled beverage#True distillation, distilled beverages were only invented after the 12th century. (Plus, what kinds of sources could there possibly be about the first "documented" production from such a time period? There are virtually no original written sources from that period anyway.)
Once we're done weeding this kind of nonsense out, the whole article should be restructured to get away from the whole history-by-countries structure. Maybe this way the article can stop creating the embarassing impression as if the brainless national point-scoring exercise of "we were first!"/"No, we were first!" had been the main focus of attention of its authors. Fut.Perf. 10:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree with you Fut.Perf. Many of the sources don't meet the criteria of WP:VERIFY because they are in Polish. Didn't surprise me after seeing the people who are editing here and "defending" this article from POV pushing though ironically doing just that themselves. If I would add sources from Russian websites and claim that the vodka was invented in Russia, my edits would been reverted in seconds. I think this article should get restructured and neutralised. Poeticbent should also understand that if he wants to improve the article, he should join the conversation without deleting my comments. Glad that some people noticed this article. Thank you. Jomlini (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Being in a non-English language in no way makes a source unverifiable. That's actually against Wikipedia policy on sources. But if the sources themselves are not reliable, then they can and should be removed. Which is why I objected to your initial edits, because they were based on a known unreliable, biased source. oknazevad (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Jomlini, you are still thinking of it all in terms of the national point-scoring game too; please stop doing that. And the language of any of our sources is quite irrelevant; they can be in Polish or Russian or Chinese, for that matter. What counts is that they reflect reliable, responsible scholarship (and when it comes to medieval attestations of words and the like, that means it should be publications by real historians, not self-styled food experts, manufacturers or the like.) Fut.Perf. 14:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, we're not currently using this [2] book, are we? Highly recommended reading. Fut.Perf. 14:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vodka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Jan Chryzostom Pasek[edit]

'The exact production methods were described in 1768 by Jan Paweł Biretowski and in 1774 by Jan Chryzostom Pasek.' Jan Chryzostom Pasek died in 1701. There seems to be some kind of a mix-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)